Governance as game-changer

Poverty of a people is not because of the scarcity of resources in the country they live in, but because of the poverty of the governance they live under. A comparative study of the governance practices of a select group of African countries and Singapore had concluded that – all else remaining the same – if just the quality of governance of these countries was of the level of the governance of Singapore (like respect for time, work ethics, meritocracy, equal treatment of and equal opportunities for the rulers and the ruled and plugging leakages of national resources) the per capita income of the people of these countries will be five times their current level.

Assuming Pakistan was included in that comparative study (on some indicators we are already bracketed with African countries) the mere $3000 GDP per capita of the people here would instead be around $15000 just by improvement in the quality of its governance, with its other weak indicators – education, health, infrastructure etc – remaining the same.

The difference between the two amounts would be the loss suffered by citizens on account of the poverty of governance they have been living under. But if the quality of governance experienced by Singapore – or even close to it – had been instituted and sustained over the years, this country would have long ago taken its rightful place among the most prosperous and powerful nations of the world. After all, Pakistan and Singapore were at similar levels of underdevelopment when they started their journey.

“We didn’t have even our own water to drink. But we created assets where none existed”, said Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew to this writer, explaining how – by sheer quality of governance – the leadership of Singapore created value where none existed and lifted the income and living standard of their people to among the highest in the world.

But – he asked me in his usual forthright style – “Why has your country not realised its potential even when it has been blessed with several advantages?”

Our great asset of human resources is being wasted away and kept uneducated, unskilled and unemployed by an oligarchy who has monopolised opportunities for themselves?

Instead of creating value and wealth for themselves as well as the country, these potential assets are leaving in search of a better future abroad – for lack of opportunities in their homeland. “If democracy does not mean widening the circles of opportunities for the people”, asked Bill Clinton, “what is it all about”? Was he talking about us?

If building a prosperous and powerful nation is really our genuine agenda, then we should listen to the wisdom of another democratic leader – this time from Asia – who advised that ‘development needs discipline more than democracy’. Instead of persisting with a dysfunctional trickle-down model that has proved itself incapable of delivering, we should learn from the success stories of Asia – Singapore, South Korea and China.

And lest we forget, Quaid-e-Azam had also listed ‘discipline’ as one of the three pillars (unity, faith, and discipline) for building the new democratic state of Pakistan. Singapore also combined democracy and discipline in a manner that delivered the highest standard of development for its people in the shortest period of time. However, like many other things, Jinnah’s wisdom was also forgotten in a free-for-all system which ultimately went on to spawn more non-state actors in all spheres of national life than the poor state of Pakistan could manage.

A culture of discipline is driven by work ethics and the sense of duty that those in authority owe to the people and the state – over and above their rights, perks and privileges. It is this sense of duty and culture of discipline that provides the will to do the right thing and implement an inclusive model of national development.

A fundamental law of democracy is that the rights of the rulers and the ruled are equal, but the duties of the rulers are greater than those of the ruled. In our trickle-down democracy, however, the culture of entitlements of the rulers is the reigning law of the land. In this culture, the rights, perks and privileges of the rulers are greater than the rights of the ruled.

Duties, in the meantime, are mostly piled upon the ruled with the rulers getting away with duty defaults even when their delays, indifference and incompetence – come floods, famines or large-scale persecutions like that of the Hazaras – inflict pain and sufferings upon millions of fellow citizens.

‘Back to the basics’ in governance is what Pakistan needs to retrieve its forgotten future. Instead of always talking of the rights, perks and privileges this country has given in abundance – beyond their needs or abilities – it is the duties that those in authority owe to the state and the people of Pakistan that no one talks about. A good time to remind ourselves: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”.

Caught up in a nutcracker of resource constraints and poverty of governance, Pakistan can pull itself out of its self-inflicted wounds by taking the honourable route to recovery. Instead of taking the kashkol (begging bowl) here, there and everywhere – which will never rid us of the root causes of our problems – it can retrain itself in the forgotten basics of good governance: respect for time, work ethics, meritocracy, cult of duty rather than culture of entitlements, equality and equal opportunities for all, and risk and reward system linked with duties to the state and not non-state actors.

None of these cost much. All of these require efficient instruments of governance to be delivered; like legal and regulatory regimes and organisations and their human resources to be professional and non-partisan. Above all, it requires the leadership to become a role model for these values in the day-to-day conduct of the affairs of the state. This governance is the game-changer.

Many positive developments would follow once we put discipline back into governance – including inflows of investment, technology and employment opportunities. As Lee Kwan Yew told this writer, when Pakistan brings back the culture of discipline into governance… “you will not have to come to me for help in seeking FDI in your country. I will be in Pakistan myself with my corporate bosses, wanting to partner with Pakistan in your national and international ventures”.

Who can bring back the culture of discipline and sense of duty in a state structure that has for long been addicted to a culture of entitlements and passing the buck to everyone else?

The writer specialised in FDI from MIT and designed the Board of Investment and First Women Bank.  Email: smshah@alum.mit.edu